Tale of Two Critics

My question to Times critic Dan Sullivan is why did he think Peter’s piece required a rejoinder in the first place? Is Dan so paranoid that this British counterpart might be right that he felt the compulsion to strike down what Peter wrote?

The fact is, having read Sullivan’s criticisms for many years, I have never gotten the impression that Sullivan himself thinks terribly highly of theater in Los Angeles, and that he would be much happier reviewing plays in London or New York.

JEFF TRENT

Burbank